Sacramento proposals to ban California Coastal Commission members from meeting privately with developers, environmentalists and citizens on pending projects face key votes today — and could die before reaching the full Legislature.

The so-called “ex parte communications” became a target of Coastal Commission critics early this year, when the panel fired executive director Charles Lester, despite public protests.

Environmentalists, many of whom supported Lester, said the private meetings gave developers and their paid staff and lobbyists an advantage in influencing commission members and were a symbol of the powerful panel’s drift away from the spirit of a voter-approved mandate to protect the coast.

One bill, SB 1190, would ban the meetings entirely. The other bill, AB 2002, would require professional lobbyists — those who represent at least one client per year and earn more than $2,000 a month lobbying — to abide by the more rigorous rules and restrictions that apply to lobbyists focused on other state agencies.

Both bills recently were put “in suspension,” a procedural move meaning they must undergo additional review — in this case to further examine the costs of the proposed changes, which one estimate said would run in the $150,000-a-year range. Other estimates found the bills wouldn’t cost the state any money.

Suspension can mean the death of legislation, although it also can be revived, amended and ultimately approved by the Legislature. If the key committees don’t send the bills to the full Assembly and Senate by a Thursday deadline, they can’t be taken up again until next year.

Ex parte meetings have figured prominently this year in the debate over the proposed Banning Ranch development, which includes plans for both open space and nearly 900 homes on a 400-acre legacy oil field on Pacific Coast Highway between Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. Opponents say commissioners met more frequently with representatives of the developer than with critics of the project.

Also, the commission chairman, Steve Kinsey, said he will recuse himself from voting on the project, after acknowledging he failed to report a pair of meetings he had with the developer, Newport Banning Ranch. A vote is scheduled on the project next month in Newport Beach.

Opponents of the ex parte bills, including the chamber and real estate and development groups, argue a ban on ex parte meetings would hamstring commissioners, who often hold full-time jobs and already have full schedules during their three-day monthly meetings.

“Most commissioners will take a meeting with anyone who asks,” said Valerie Nera, a policy advocate the California Chamber of Commerce. “I think it’s really important for people to be able to talk to commissioners and offer insight.”

The ban on ex parte meetings would effectively end commission site visits at private properties, since such visits require interacting with project applicants, Nera added.

Supporters of the ban on ex parte communications say the system of considering development on increasingly scarce and valuable coastal land has been compromised.

“There has been bias introduced as a result of these ex partes that essentially tip the scale in favor of the developers,” said Amy Trainer, the deputy director of the California Coastal Protection Network.

By spending more time with lobbyists and project applicants, commissioners start to adopt a mindset friendlier to developers, Trainer said. “The decision making becomes, ‘How do we help the developer get what they want?’”

One recurring complaint has been that commissioners fail to file detailed reports on their private meetings, said Trainer. Instead, commissioners often write a few sentences to describe meetings lasting an hour or two.

Reports about ex parte meetings could be more robust, but the proposed meeting ban isn’t good public policy, said Nera, the Chamber policy advocate.

The ex parte ban wouldn’t solely affect developers, noted attorney Mark Massara, who previously represented the Surfrider Foundation before the coastal panel and frequently urges commissioners to reject development proposals. Opposition groups and environmentalists would see their access curtailed, he said. “This is a butcher knife where a scalpel is more appropriate.”